My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2017 05 25
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2019 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2017 05 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:00:21 PM
Creation date
6/9/2017 11:05:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BCBOAPKT 2017 05 25
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of <br />Im Louisville <br />COLORADO - SINCE 1878 <br />BUILDING CODE BOARD OF <br />APPEALS COMMUNICATION <br />SUBJECT: <br />DATE: <br />1610 CIRCLE DRIVE APPEAL REHEARING <br />MAY 25, 2017 <br />PRESENTED BY: ROBERT ZUCCARO, PLANNING & BUILDING SAFETY <br />DIRECTOR <br />BILL CLAYTON, INTERIM BUILDING OFFICIAL <br />SUMMARY: <br />Staff is presenting additional information related to the appeal case at 1610 Circle Drive <br />that the Building Code Board of Appeals originally reviewed on March 16, 2017. This <br />case relates to an appeal of an interpretation of Sections 102.7 and R311.7.2 of the <br />2012 International Residential Code. <br />The applicant contends that the current condition of a staircase with 6'0" headroom <br />should be allowed as an existing condition that is part of a basement renovation and <br />altering the staircase to comply with minimum headroom requirements is not a <br />technically feasible option (see Attachment No. 1). <br />Following the original Board review and determination on March 16, 2017, the applicant <br />requested that staff visit the site to review possible solutions. The City's Interim Building <br />Official, Bill Clayton, CBO conducted a site visit and met with the owner and the owner's <br />architect. Mr. Clayton evaluated the site conditions, additional information provided by <br />the applicant, and additional sections of the 2012 International Residential Code and <br />International Building Code relevant to the case. Mr. Clayton finds that City's adopted <br />building codes support maintaining the current condition of the staircase without <br />modification and recommends reversing the previous decision requiring a minimum 6'6" <br />of headroom. Attached is a detailed analysis from Mr. Clayton on this issue (see <br />Attachment No. 2). <br />Article IX, Section 14 of the Building Code Board of Appeals Bylaws allows for rehearing <br />of an appeal case if there is a substantial change in facts subsequent to the original <br />hearing (see below for Article IX, Section 14 and Attachment No. 3 for complete <br />Bylaws). In this case, staff finds that there has been a substantial change in facts and <br />recommends that the Board conduct this rehearing. <br />Section 14. Rehearing, <br />A. The Board may rehear a previously granted or denied application and may <br />modify its decision thereon only if: <br />(1) <br />The hearing is conducted and the decision modified at a time prior <br />to the date an appeal of the initial decision must be perfected <br />pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4); and <br />(2) There has been a substantial change in the facts or law subsequent <br />to the initial hearing. <br />Prior to any rehearing, the Board shall cause proper notice thereof to be given to the <br />parties and the public. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.